Bizell, Patricia. “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty

Bizell, Patricia. “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing” (387).
Of the articles relating to cognitive writing, I find Bizzell’s the most useful, and the most thoughtful. “Science-a-tizing” writing may answer some questions, but it leaves much to be desired. Writing is a synthesis of many things.
“This profound effect on students is themore to be expected because of the terms in which the ‘writing problem’ has appeared to us—terms that suggest that students’ thinking needs remediation as much as their writing. Seeing the problem this way makes it very clear that our teaching task is not only to convey information but also to transform students’ whole world view” (387).
“We now see the ‘writing problem’ as a thinking problem primarily because we used to take our students’ thinking for granted” (387).
“Composition specialists generally agree about some fundamental elements in the development of language and thought. We agree that the normal human individual posses innate mental capacities to learn a language and to assemble complex conceptual structures” (388).
“One theoretical camp sees writing as primarily inner-directed, and so is more interested in the structure of language-learning and thinking processes in their earliest state, prior to social influence. The other main theoretical camp sees writing as primarily outer-directed, and so is more interested in the social processes whereby language-learning and thinking capacities are shaped and used in particular communities” (388).
“Inner-directed theorists further claim, in a similar paradox, that the universal, fundamental structures of thought and language can be taught” (390).
“In contrast, outer-directed theorists believe that universal, fundamental structures can’t be taught: thinking and language use can never occur free of social context that conditions them “(390).
“Outer directed theorists would argue that we have no reason to believe, and no convincing way to determine, that our students can’t think or use language in complex ways. It’s just that they can’t think or use language in the ways we want them to” (392).
Discourse analysis goes beyond audience analysis because what is most significant about members of a discourse community is not their personal preferences, prejudices, and so on, but rather the expectations they share by virtue of belonging to that particular community” (392).
“We need to explain the cognitive and the social factors in writing development, and even more important the relationship between them” (392).
“On the other hand, we find out eventually [referring to Flower] that ‘monitor’ means simply ‘the writer’s mind making decisions.’ Borrowing a term from programming masks the question of why the writer makes certain decisions” (395).